Transpacific Cleanaway Limited v Foyer [2013] NSWDC 217

Transpacific Cleanaway Limited v Foyer [2013] NSWDC 217

The defendants/cross-claimants failed to prove that the Council vehicle restrictions or any lost rent during the vacancy period were caused, in the contractual legal sense governed by Robinson v Harman and Hadley v Baxendale, by Transpacific's admitted breach in installing the unauthorised weighbridge. The restrictions did not ordinarily flow from the breach and were not shown to have been within the parties' contemplation; nor was the alleged lost opportunity to market or relet the premises shown to have had value or to have caused the later vacancy loss. As the legal costs and unpaid outgoings were undisputed, Transpacific was entitled to the balance of the bank guarantee plus interest,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil; Contract Lease Damages Proceeding With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $52,000; cross-claim dismissed; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs including the costs of the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['breach of Lease' 'unauthorised Construction of Weighbridge' 'development Consent Conditions' 'causation' 'remoteness of Contractual Damages' 'lost Opportunity Damages' 'bank Guarantee' 'costs Follow the Event']
['contract' 'leases' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Lease' 'unauthorised Construction of Weighbridge' 'development Consent Conditions' 'causation' 'remoteness of Contractual Damages' 'lost Opportunity Damages' 'bank Guarantee' 'costs Follow the Event']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil; Contract Lease Damages Proceeding With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What measure of damages the defendants/cross-claimants were entitled to by reason of the plaintiff's admitted breach of lease in installing an unauthorised weighbridge at the leased premises." 'Whether vehicle restrictions imposed by Council, and alleged lost rent during a vacancy period, were caused in the relevant legal sense by the unauthorised weighbridge.' 'Whether the defendants/cross-claimants lost a valuable opportunity to market or relet the premises because of the vehicle restrictions.' 'Whether lost opportunity damages are recoverable for breach of contract only if specifically adverted to in the lease.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the retained bank guarantee balance plus interest after credit for undisputed outgoings and legal costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants/cross-claimants failed to prove that the Council vehicle restrictions or any lost rent during the vacancy period were caused, in the contractual legal sense governed by Robinson v Harman and Hadley v Baxendale, by Transpacific's admitted breach in installing the unauthorised weighbridge. The restrictions did not ordinarily flow from the breach and were not shown to have been within the parties' contemplation; nor was the alleged lost opportunity to market or relet the premises shown to have had value or to have caused the later vacancy loss. As the legal costs and unpaid outgoings were undisputed, Transpacific was entitled to the balance of the bank guarantee plus interest,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $52,000; cross-claim dismissed; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs including the costs of the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $52,000.' 'Cross-claim dismissed.' "Defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs including the costs of the cross-claim." 'Exhibits to be returned after 28 days.']